On 2012-03-05 05:17, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Proposal:
>
> Make all of our registries IETF Review (except for headers, which are governed by RFC3864).
+1
> Add a 'status' field to each registry, with the following possible values:
>
> Standard / Reserved / Obsolete
>
> ... with the notion that if there are commonly-used values that haven't gone through IETF Review, they can be written up in a quick I-D and registered as Reserved.
When you say "quick I-D" what exactly do you mean? Register as
"reserved" with a pointer to the I-D? If the idea is that the I-D will
have to be approved and published, what's the difference to "Standard"?
(maybe standards-track vs non-standards-track?)
> Because the rate of change for all of these is pretty slow, excepting headers (which as per above aren't included), and the set of folks extending these is pretty limited, I think it's OK. The only thing that makes me a bit nervous is cache directives, but they still don't move that fast (and it seems like the most direct impact would be on myself ;).
>
> Thoughts? I'm open to alternative approaches, just want to keep things rolling. If we keep things as they are, we need to identify a bunch of expert reviewers and document procedures for them.
>
> Cheers,
>
> P.S. this is related to<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/247>.
> ...
Best regards, Julian